Otherwise it’s going to end up dead with each campaign separating players.
1 Like
so, germans and italians against americans british and soviets over moscow? ( for example )
i don’t know chief.
2 Likes
you mean america vs britian, germany, russia and italy over hong kong
9 Likes
Pretty much, combine the factions together.
The more campaigns they add, the faster the game will die - that much is obvious.
yes, and no.
i see a point in it, but at the same time, the already crambling balance and above all, immersion would both fall.
just think about it.
even if you have a starter puma, you will have a better time against a t28 or even a t50.
then, how would you balance a jumbo against an is 2 or generally earlier against later equipment.
british forces along side italians one would be the one that will struggle the most.
lol. just to think about it, pz gr39 against a jumbo… yeah i don’t know.
perhaps someone else in this section comment will come up with something better for my brain.
but for now, i’m " neutral " about it because i do recognize problems when i see one.
5 Likes
In another post I also suggested to add some kind of a resource (such as spawn points in War Thunder) in order to balance between heavier tanks vs lighter tanks. (This would also stop tank spamming and add appreciation for the vehicle instead of just treating it as just another squad in your list).
It seems like War Thunder already has it figured out, it’s been running successful for over 11 years now.
There is also historical modes for those who want to keep playing a historically accurate version of the game, in which the current version of campaigns can be preserved
well, about that topic, i’m against it.
simply because people would grind for better equipment, and than forced to not being able to use them because of others already using those better tanks.
and right here, i have to disagree.
the only reason why war thunder is popular, is because of the game mechanics that aren’t in every day’s ( or i should say modern: ) titles.
that’s the only reason. a game based on frustration i wouldn’t call it a " sucess " and enlisted, unlike war thunder, has many competitors. but this is just my merely opinion.
perhaps.
we have to see if the devs are willing to put alot of work 
either way, we’ll see what the others thinks about it 
1 Like
I mean… you already have this problem in the game, with better tanks getting added outclassing the older models.
Same with weapons.
Adding a resource cost to spawn your tank would actually help balance out the tanks, because as of right now, there’s no difference in spawning a Tiger or a Bt-7. With resources added, it would take a lot more to spawn a Tiger than it would to spawn a lighter vehicle.
Anyway, it’s just an idea, hopefully the devs think it through. Want to see this game survive and flourish.
1 Like
One of the upcoming features of custom matches will be that. Ability to play with diferent campaign squads on the map you want. So campaign division will be fixed.
I m hyped for that, I ill grind Moscow troops on normandy or berlin just for the sweet xp per min. If, the xp rates stay the same on custom matches.
2 Likes
Dunno, I have the feeling that the perceived better XP in Normandy and Berlin is actually due to late war weapons being more lethal, so players actually kill and die more, hence the higher XP.
The IF is strong in this one.
Its a strong if.
Still for the same base xp of 5k to 10k on Moscow I earn way less than in normandy or berlin. But again xp rates are a mess to understand.
War Thunder is still running mainly because there is NO direct competitor, but it’s been gladly sitting on its own fat butt, pumping out content like popcorns but otherwise putting little to no effort in refreshing game modes, balancing things exclusively by almighty Statistics™ with no regard to actual player experience, and constantly experimenting how further the economy could be strangled, to the point that not even premium account is profitable anymore.
You DON’T want Enlisted to become like War Thunder.
3 Likes
I believe it really is due to better equipment… Now having a bunch of mkb42h, mg34, (and kar98… I love BA too much to stop using them) I make silly matchs with high xp rewards. Same on the Soviet side with my ppsh guys or t50 assaults 
I m used to 40to 60 k per game, when I see 5k to 10k base on Moscow with only 30k end xp even with premium squads I loose interest.
I m trully just focused on Berlin axis side, it’s probably the only campaign I trully do my best in-game. All other campaigns I m just interested in xp per game. Ence why I don’t care much about them
Mmmh 60k exp indeed is alot. Those numbers are rare in Moscow even when mvp with 3-4 medals
Yes maybe there’s some multiplier we don’t know about.
I do 40 to 60 k Alot in normandy. Grinded both 29 to 32 axis and allies level last weekend.
That’s 6x 180k xp in a few game hours…
But you know… I whale on premium and premium squads just for that…
That’s absolutely fine, I WOULD too, even at those absurd prices… If I didn’t feel premium didn’t desperately need a rework.
1 Like
Fight a Zero and P51 in your Fw190A5? Can’t outmaneuver the Zero and can’t outrun the 51. I still curse the day when they mixed it all up in Realistic.
1 Like
Ikr this was one of the dumbest decisions gaijin ever made.
Last thing I want to see is this being applied to Enlisted too.
Darkflow needs to stop shelling out new campaigns and not give in to player made hype trains like “gib new campaign.” Also screw everyone who thinks that adding new campaigns is a good idea for the playerbase… unless the final goal are total ghost towns everywhere.
Polishing what we have and gaining playerbase first is the key.
Not the absolute bullcrap type of matchmaking.
3 Likes
I see the draw for this.
But it would be terrible in practice.
They should never do this unless the game is dying.
I for one would not like British v Italians in Moscow.